I have the function
window.location.assign(url)
which does not exist in jsdom... so raising an error in my test
Someone mention the possibility to stub this function ( using Sinon)
see jsdom issue
sinon.stub(window.location, 'assign');
expect(window.location.assign).to.have.been.calledWith(url);
How can I replicate it using Jest ? ( since it does not exist , I cannot use spies... it has to be mocked )
thanks for feedback
You could provide your custom implementation
jest.spyOn(window.location, 'assign').mockImplementation(url => console.log(url))
Related
I know this question was asked before but I couldn't find any solution for my issue.
I am developing a WebAPI with more than 10 Controllers which their methods access a server DB.
I am using Linq2SQL to write the queries and using Json to serialize the return to send it back to my application.
The problem is no matter how simple is the query it returns the self reference loop when serialize and this is happening in all controller methods. See one example below:
var retitems = dtcxapi.ListItems.AsQueryable()
.Where(i => i.IsActive == true && i.ListName.ToLower() == listName.ToLower()).ToList();
where dtcxapi is my DataContext and ListItems is my table.
When serialize it shows: Self referencing loop detected with type 'BV.IMSWEBAPI.User'. Path '[0].User1.Users1'.
But as I said this error will occur for any query in any controller methods. I tried already to use the ReferenceLoopHandling = Newtonsoft.Json.ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore in mWeb config but it didn't fix.
Any help will be really appreciated.
Thanks
The only true way to fix this is to not return your Linq objects and instead return a DTO/Model that is not tied to your database. If you are returning your database objects, you will always run into self referencing loops because of Navigation properties.
You haven't mentioned if you are using .NET Core or .NET Framework, but if it's Core, it won't use web.config at all and instead you should modify your startup method :
services.AddControllers().AddNewtonsoftJson(x => x.SerializerSettings.ReferenceLoopHandling = Newtonsoft.Json.ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore);
But again, this is a bandaid, the correct solution is to use DTOs
More info : https://dotnetcoretutorials.com/2020/03/15/fixing-json-self-referencing-loop-exceptions/
I'm getting grails "BadlyFormattedFlowExecutionKeyException" exception when I change the execution param value in address bar!! Does anyone know how to handle such Exceptions?
Cheers!
I had the same problem. After a lot of googling, i made a filter for each flow.
And In 'before' closure i read params.execution, if params.execution is not null i test the state with getFlowStateName function:
Accessing flow state name from filter
if is a invalid state (the function return null) i redirect to the begin of flow (redirect controller: 'xx', action: 'yy').
Best Regards!
I am using Moq, NUnit, WPF, MVVM, Ninject.
I am writing a test for my LoginViewModel, and in the test when I use the constructor of the LoginViewModel to create a new instance, I am getting a NullReferenceException error. The code compiles and runs, (i.e. when I run the program the LoginView shows, and works with the LoginViewModel to create the correct behaviour etc) but for some reason the UnitTest is crashing.
this is the constructor:
public LoginViewModel(ILoginServices loginServices,IDialogService dialogServices)
{
InitializeFields();
_loginServices = loginServices;
_dialogService = dialogServices;
DomainList = _loginServices.GetDomainListing();
}
I have mocked the dependencies as follows:
Mock<ILoginServices> moq = new Mock<ILoginServices>();
moq.Setup(log =>
log.LoginUser(It.IsAny<string>(),
It.IsAny<string>(),
It.IsAny<string>()))
.Callback<string, string, string>((i, j, k) => CheckArgs(i, j, k));
moq.Setup(log2 =>
log2.GetDomainListing()).Returns(new List<string> { "Domain" });
Mock<IDialogService> moq2 = new Mock<IDialogService>();
I have also tried inserting real services as the parameters.
I have verified that the mocks do work, and the objects these mocks
return are not null.
I have commented out all the code in the constructor.
I have tried inserting the line
LoginViewModel test = new LoginViewModel(_fakeLoginService,_fakeDialogService);
in front of the call to the constructor (to see if it had to do with the original local variable being disposed or something before) and this line crashed instead.
From all I can see this must be the constructor,(but not the code I have written inside it) and that this is solely related to NUnit / Moq as my code still compiles and runs fine.
I have no idea on this one guys, can anyone point me in the right direction?
[Edit]
Ok so I have run through the code and the error comes from this line of code:
ImageSource = (ImageSource)Application.Current.FindResource(_imageName);
This code is going to a ImageDictionary and getting a reference to the image for an undo button in the WindowViewModel (which my LoginViewModel inherits).
My hypotheses as to why its working in the normal running of the application, but not in the testing are:
1) Because I am running the program code through NUnit, the Application.Current object isnt getting property assigned/there is no Application.Current object to get.
**or**
2) Something to do with the fact that because the program code is being run in NUnit, the code doesn't have access to/can't resolve the ImageDictionary to find the image.
I'm leaning more strongly to the first hypothesis, but I'm as of yet not 100% sure, and I am having trouble finding the values of the Application.Current at runtime, cause when I move my cursor over the code the tooltip that normally appears showing the detail of the object that is not appearing.
My new question is: Does any of this make sense? Do you guys know if the Application.Current object exists / can be accessed when running the testing project through NUnit?
Any help will be appreciated.
You are correct. Application.Current is null for Unit tests. You can work around this by injecting the Application object as referencing singletons in code can make life tricky.
I'm writing a simple Twitter client to play with coffeescript. I have an object literal with some functions that call each other via callbacks.
somebject =
foo: 'bar'
authenticateAndGetTweets: ->
console.log "Authorizing using oauth"
oauth = ChromeExOAuth.initBackgroundPage(this.oauthdetails)
oauth.authorize( this.afterLogin.call this )
afterLogin: ->
this.getTweets(this.pollinterval)
This code works perfectly. Edit: actually this.afterlogin should be sent as a callback above, not ran immediately, as Trevor noted below.
If, within authenticateAndGetTweets, I removed the 'call' and just ran:
oauth.authorize( this.afterLogin )
and don't use 'call', I get the following error:
Uncaught TypeError: Object [object DOMWindow] has no method 'getTweets
Which makes sense, since 'this' in afterLogin is bound to the thing that initiated the callback rather than 'someobject' my object literal.
I was wondering if there's some magic in Coffeescript I could be doing instead of 'call'. Initially I thought using the '=>' but the code will give the same error as above if '=>' is used.
So is there a way I can avoid using call? Or does coffeescript not obviate the need for it? What made '=>' not work how I expected it to?
Thanks. I'm really enjoying coffeescript so far and want to make sure I'm doing things 'the right way'.
As matyr points out in his comments, the line
oauth.authorize( this.afterLogin.call this )
doesn't cause this.afterLogin to be called as a callback by oauth.authorize; instead, it's equivalent to
oauth.authorize this.afterLogin()
Assuming that you want this.afterLogin to used as a callback by oauth.authorize, megakorre's answer gives a correct CoffeeScript idiom. An alternative approach supported by many modern JS environments, as matyr points out, would be to write
oauth.authorize( this.afterLogin.bind this )
There's no CoffeeScript shorthand for this, partly because Function::bind isn't supported by all major browsers. You could also use the bind function from a library like Underscore.js:
oauth.authorize( _.bind this.afterLogin, this )
Finally, if you were to define someobject as a class instead, you could use => to define afterLogin such that it's always bound to the instance, e.g.
class SomeClass
foo: 'bar'
authenticateAndGetTweets: ->
console.log "Authorizing using oauth"
oauth = ChromeExOAuth.initBackgroundPage(this.oauthdetails)
oauth.authorize(this.afterLogin)
afterLogin: =>
this.getTweets(this.pollinterval)
someobject = new SomeClass
you can put a lambda in the function call like so
auth.authorize(=> #afterLogin())
You have to use either the call or apply methods because they set the scope of the function (the value of this). The error results because the default scope is the window object.
I'm trying to setup a test in JUnit w/ EasyMock and I'm running into a small issue that I can't seem to wrap my head around. I was hoping someone here could help.
Here is a simplified version of the method I'm trying to test:
public void myMethod() {
//(...)
Obj myObj = this.service.getObj(param);
if (myObj.getExtId() != null) {
OtherObj otherObj = new OtherObj();
otherObj.setId(myObj.getExtId());
this.dao.insert(otherObj);
}
//(...)
}
Ok so using EasyMock I've mocked the service.getObj(myObj) call and that works fine.
My problem comes when JUnit hits the dao.insert(otherObj) call. EasyMock throws a *Unexpected Method Call* on it.
I wouldn't mind mocking that dao in my test and using expectLastCall().once(); on it, but that assumes that I have a handle on the "otherObj" that's passed as a parameter at insert time...
Which of course I don't since it's conditionally created within the context of the method being tested.
Anyone has ever had to deal with that and somehow solved it?
Thanks.
You could also use EasyMock.isA(OtherObj.class) for a little more type safety.
If you can't get a reference to the object itself in your test code, you could use EasyMock.anyObject() as the expected argument to yourinsert method. As the name suggests, it will expect the method to be called with.. well, any object :)
It's maybe a little less rigorous than matching the exact argument, but if you're happy with it, give it a spin. Remember to include the cast to OtherObjwhen declaring the expected method call.
The anyObject() matcher works great if you just want to get past this call, but if you actually want to validate the constructed object is what you thought it was going to be, you can use a Capture. It would look something like:
Capture<OtherObj> capturedOtherObj = new Capture<OtherObj>();
mockDao.insert(capture(capturedOtherObj));
replay(mockDao);
objUnderTest.myMethod();
assertThat("captured what you expected", capturedOtherObj.getValue().getId(),
equalTo(expectedId));
Also, PowerMock has the ability to expect an object to be constructed, so you could look into that if you wanted.
Note also that if you use EasyMock.createStrictMock();, the order of the method calls is also important and if you break this rule, it would throw an unexpected method call.